The New Neo-Nazis

When a terrorist rampage recently occurred in Toulouse, France, the (left-wing) media was (as always) eager to paint it as another case of “right-wing” violence:

According to French Interior Minister Claude Guéant, the similarities between the assassination of soldiers in Toulouse and Montauban and the eerie butchery at Ozar Hatora were “compelling.” Moreover, investigators established that the criminal used the same weapon, a World War II 11.43 gun, in all three instances. What remained unclear, according to police, was the number of killers and whether they had received support from a larger criminal network. Motive also remained a mystery.

For 48 hours, many speculated about a neo-Nazi psychopath, some sort of French Tim McVeigh or Anders Breivik. What seemed to encourage this view was the fact that the shooter targeted only non-Caucasian soldiers and Jews and that a neo-Nazi network had been investigated and prosecuted among the Montauban military four years ago.

Sadly for their narrative, the man turned out to have a name that has become very familiar over the past decade, and admitted to being a member of al-Qaeda. So he wasn’t a “neo-Nazi” after all.

Or was he?

This latest incident just points out the continuing absurdity of both the simple-minded, single-dimensional classification of political belief systems as “left versus right,” and where on that spectrum, to the degree that it has any validity, fascism in general and Nazism in particular belong.

As Jonah Goldberg has repeatedly pointed out, fascism (and Nazism) have their roots not in the “right” (at least if by that one means a belief in individualism and liberty, as laid out by the Founders in the Constitution), but in the “left” in that it is a collectivist and ultimately totalitarian philosophy deeply wedded to an ever more powerful state. Mussolini considered himself a man of the Left, and Nazism was literally national socialism. The new twist that Hitler brought to the fascist party wasn’t racism per se (though Mussolini himself wasn’t particularly racist, and actually had Jews in his government). The leftist American progressives (admirers, at least initially, of Mussolini — some of the New Deal was modeled after Italian programs) had their own racist streak, with, for example, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her enthusiasm for eugenics. And it continues to this day, in their insistence on categorizing and cataloging people by race to ensure a “fair” distribution of the spoils — though the notion is intrinsically absurd. What “race” is Tiger Woods?:

…consider the issue of government use of racial classifications. Liberal justices have been willing to uphold virtually any use of race by the government — including quotas in higher education, set-asides for government contracts, and raced-based assignments of students to public schools — so long as the government claims benign motives. The conservatives, by contrast, argue that the government must treat people as individuals, not as members of a racial caste.

No, Hitler simply took racism, and particularly anti-Semitism (one of, if not the oldest, bigotries in the book) to new heights, deliberately slaughtering millions of Jews for no reason other than that they were Jews, along with homosexuals, Gypsies, Catholics, and others.

Now, if people remain confused about whether or not fascism in general and Nazism in particular is “left-wing” or “right-wing,” the confusion grows deeper when contemplating Islamists, to the point that few in the conventional media (to the limited degree that they are even willing to recognize their existence) even try to classify them along that simplistic spectrum. But it all comes down to a “duck” test.

Do they promote a political system where the individual will is bent to that of the (Islamist) state? Check.

Do they advocate a totalitarian regime, in which no personal decision lies beyond its reach? Check.

Do they take as their guide a book written by the founder of their movement? Check.

Are they willing to tell lies about their beliefs and intentions in order to gain political power? Check.

Are they willing, even happy to kill and terrorize innocents to maintain that power? Yup.

Do they think Jews nonhuman, and wish them exterminated from the earth? OK, that one is more specific to Nazism, but you bet.

Whatever Nazis are in the political taxonomy, Islamists are in the same rough neighborhood. So it perhaps won’t surprise the reader to learn that in fact, during the war, one of Adolf Hitler’s most powerful allies in the Middle East was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, one of the most powerful Arab leaders at the time. Their alliance was forged in November of 1941, a little over a week before America’s belated entrance into the war, in which they expressed their shared goals for world domination:

The Fuhrer…made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.
3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

After the war, and after the trials at Nuremberg, Nazism as not just a military force, but even a potent political force, had been smashed. In Germany, it was completely banned. In America, there remained scattered bands of men who still reveled in dreams of ultimate racial domination, who were even allowed to continue to ineffectually parade in Illinois and other places with their swastikas, but few took or take them seriously, and they have little effect on policy or politics.

But the mufti remained. No one occupied the Middle East and deposed or tried and hung the heirs to Hitler there, though their goals were his. Rather, the British, having been on the winning side of the war in Europe, but spent as an empire, abandoned the Middle East, and he went on to become a mentor to the terrorist Yasser Arafat and others. And now, with Mein Kampf a best seller there to augment their own, the dreams of Jewish destruction live on for Hamas and al-Qaeda and others, in the West Bank, Gaza, and much of the Arab world. And due to immigration policies and multiculturalism, the infection has spread to France and other places.

Such thoughts, of course, arouse a painful cognitive dissonance, particularly in France, which has its own anti-Semitism problem, as a result of which Jews have been engaged in a new exodus from the country for years. This is partly because of the increase in attacks on them by the growing Muslim population, but also an intrinsic sense of anti-Semitism among the elite, disguised (as is often the case) “as a hatred for Israel, that ‘sh***y little country,’” as a French diplomat so delicately put it a few years ago.

But it has to be troubling for French who know their own history. After the war, everyone had been a member of the Resistance (of course), but they know that during the war, there were many who were happy to turn in the Jews to the Nazis to be shipped off to the ovens. Now, in the banlieues outside of Paris, Toulouse, and other French cities, the French face a new occupation by people who would take up Hitler’s lost cause with enthusiasm, though it is one they brought on themselves rather than through an armed invasion. So when they talk of neo-Nazis, they should ask themselves what that word really means, and whether it is left, right, or just wrong.

Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.

Click here to view the 72 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

72 Comments, 35 Threads

Absolutely. The sole difference of interest between Islam and Hitlerian National Socialism is that Mohammed introduced Islam’s supernatural backstory — its mythos — before he articulated its prescriptions and proscriptions — its ethos. Thus, both creeds are religions by definition, but Islam was more candid about it.

As usual, right on! May I add that our Lord, Jesus Christ, said that “No man comes to the Father except through Me.” So the worst thing about Islam is that each and every one of its adherents is on his way to Hell.Islamics deny Jesus’ divinity, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension and His absolute authority in Heaven and on earth. Thus they do not obey Him, and He, Heb.5.9, saves those who obey Him. Islam is of Satan; an international criminal conspiracy to overthrow the governments of the world and establish a global sharia under a grand caliph. Islamics are enemies of our Constitution and they will destroy us if they can. So, what are you going to do about it?

It has also been continuously in print in the Arab world since he wrote it. Along with the late 19th century Russian hoax document “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”.

Most normal people don’t realize that the latter is not only still used as a basic text for various anti-Semitic types, it’s also the basic “blueprint” for a variety of later conspiracy theories, ranging from the Bilderberger one to the ones about various UFO-driving aliens being in cahoots with any government the conspiracy theorist in question doesn’t like.

BTW, if you browse the bookstalls in a typical bazaar in most Arab countries, these two are usually on the table right next to each other. And generally you’ll find Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine- Peace Not Apartheid” right next to them.

Islamism is neither left, right nor anything in between. Islamism IS Islam, as defined by the Koran. Nothing more, nothing less.

IF one is a follower of Islam,(and not an apostate) one is by definition an Islamist.This is why calling someone a ‘moderate’ Muslim is like calling someone half pregnant.

So called ‘moderates’ basically believe that their power/ability to submit others-infidels to Allah-has not yet come to fruition. As such, they bide their time. On the other hand,Islamists believe that waging OPEN jihad is the way forward, regardless of who holds power. It is the above confusion (a distinction without a difference) which leads western elitists (and others) to place their hopes/beliefs in fantastical thinking, that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, simply because ‘moderates’ say so. Gullible people prefer to ignore that the open jihadists, and the ‘moderates’, are merely using different tactics, but their END goal is the same.

Moreover. Islamists (ALL followers of Islam) have been killing/subjugating infidels before Nazism ever arose. However, once Nazism reared its (supremacist) head, Islamists joined forced with them. They are a natural fit, like a hand to its glove and both operate under supremacist/submission ideologies! There is MUCH evidence of this, both pre-Holocaust and beyond. In fact, one of Hitler’s BIGGEST allies was the Mufti of Jerusalem, an Islamist of the highest order!

It should come as NO surprise that after the Koran, the BIGGEST best seller in Arab/Muslim countries is Mein Kampf. As a matter of fact, most Muslim celebratory events/training camps show their ‘soldiers of Allah’ hailing/sporting the Nazi (SS) salute.

I think the point of the article is that leftists give cover to Islamists because they don’t see any material difference between the ideologies. In fact, since Islamists have been around continually for 1500 years you could probably make the argument they beget Communism. Substitute the Koran with the State, Imam with Commissar, Ayatollah with Tzar and you’ve got Communism. In both cases the goal is complete and absolute submission to the State.

Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since its founding. The moslems started World War I almost 1400 years ago and it has continued ever since. The true titles for the great wars fought in the 20th century should be WWII and WWIII. The first world war is still raging, and I dare not say what will be its end.

I don’t buy this definition of Islam. We don’t know what a person or a group is until we see what it is they do. It is very hard to see the success of and academic/media cover for Jihad in the West without perceiving an intertwining of the two that goes beyond the Koran. They are 2 legs of the same stool with acquiescence by the West as the third leg. The contradictions of feminists and homosexuals etc. standing by Islam and Islamists standing with atheists falls away if seen as an historical alliance between Socialists and Islam. This alliance was already in force by the 1920′s and Von Mises and other Austrian school economists were writing about it.

What is also striking is that few Islamists were at Occupy rallies. Moslems in America and Europe are very dedicated small businessmen and it would not be hard to see a less Jihadist but no less Islamic group of people. I just think that if the Left came to ruin Islam would not have those levers to pull and we would see a different sort of animal or animals. Maybe more strident, less strident but certainly different.

Muslims do not follow the Koran written by their founder. They follow the Koran written much later by people who could read, and write.

Muhammad lived Islam. That life is well documented in the correct History books. A life of raiding caravans, slavely, murder, and rape. That reads like he is a Marxist. Therefore, Islam is part of the left, and maybe why globalists love Islam.

Leatherneck Mohammad did not write it of course as he was illiterate he just INVENTED it as a conglomeration of all the “Chinese Whispers” he heard about the Talmud,the Bible and the New Testament. Which is why you get so many MISTAKES in the Koran such as choosing the WRONG son of Abraham who was supposed to be sacrificed. In the Bible its Isaac but Muslims because of Mohammads stupidity think it should be Ishmael. Of course the narcissist Mohammads excuse when told of all his sock puppet Allah’s MISTAKES was to say that the Talmud and the Bible had been corrupted but that Allah had protected the Koran from corruption. Of course he had no answer as to why Allah could not prevent the Talmud and Bible from being corrupted likewise even though Muslims like to pretend their evil satanic God is the same as the Judeo/Christian one.

“Muslims do not follow the Koran written by their founder. They follow the Koran written much later by people who could read, and write.”

So true. The final version of Koran was written by Uvalve in 333 After Hajira.
The many alternate versions were burned by decree, and iftjhad (discussion) was closed.

There is no mention of Mohammed in any letters of the first 160 years after his ‘reign’ shaking down the bazaaris in Mecca, on any coinage, nor in the inscription on the door of the the Blue Mosque.

One hundred years after him, Bhukari and Talabi gathered the tall tales sung by an eccentric half-Jew bandit who to attract larger crowds to the concession held by Khadima at the Ramadan harvest fair.

You heard that right. Mohammed was Jewish.
His youth gang attacked his own family, the Qurayza, an interbred Jewish-Bedouin tribe that were the appointed guardians of the traders’ family totems at the bazaar shrine by the meteorite Kaaba. Mecca was a crossroads trading town near the old Roman copper mines.

His uncle led the clan; Mohammed failed to supplant him (typical MidEast politics) and fled to the medina, the ‘Old City’ of the Jews.
He turned against his family, and then his people, when Jewish authorities refused to declare him a prophet. Why would a pagan seek Jewish authority?

The Qurayza had forgotten how to read; Mohammed only remembered a few Biblical names such as Adam, Noah, and Cain. There is no Eden story, no beginning, end, or structure to Koran. He was just making stuff up from one day to the next.
Bhukari and Talabi simply collected tales accredited to him and piled it them together from shortest to longest.
Sunna and Hadith were more tales ascribed to Mohammed to flesh out his growing mythology.

Islamic culture actually began much earlier. The Old Testament Jews refer to the moon-goddess as Sin in Babylon.
It gained momentum when Rome could no longer pay their border garrisons.
The Roads fell to banditry. The Goths, however, could read Roman military manuals; the Arabs could not and burned every library they could find for the next 1000 years- including Alexandria by Caliph Omar.

Almost all of Islamic history is a fraud.
I believe they were camp followers and hired mercenaries of the Mongols, who merely stayed behind to claim the land when the Mongols went home.

Koran is sung by mullahs in mosque because it makes no sense to read it.
Arabs can’t make sense of it either, the Koran is usually just carried as a totem. They only quote repeated bits, not full verses, it depends on whatever they are trying to pull over on you. (Such as the oft-claimed “There is no compulsion in religion”- the full verse says for your slaves! Or then you may kill, sell, or tax them).

Koran doesn’t need to make sense. It’s ok to make things up, and lie constantly- “Inshallah” means we both know “I’m lying to save face or to bully you”.

Remarkably similar to postmodernist deconstructionism, don’t you think?

When a Muslim Terrorist shouts this, he is being very clear about his motive: jihad, the holy struggle to defend Islam by killing infidels. So apart from confirming that this Terrorist Act was Mohammedan in nature it also exposes the reality of Islam because if THEIR god is greatest then there must be perforce other ‘lesser’ Gods. Which reveals Islams Polytheistic roots it also reveals the confrontational and supremacist nature of Islam. Needless to say the Mohammedans are very happy that the moronic moonbats and the Islamophile, antisemitic Lame Stream EneMedia continue to mistranslate it as “God is Great” as this also gives them the opportunity to say that their God allah is the same as your God which is patently and clearly insane. The Mohammedan God is an evil , self contradictory, illogical, violent, misogynistic, vengeful , antisemitic, Arab supremacist God (its all in the Koran) totally unlike the Christian and Jewish God.

Which proves, yet again, that the worst enemies of the Jews are and always have been apostate Jews. Apostates have been causing them trouble since they left Egypt, and have always been the bane of their existence, leading others astray and causing all manner of trouble.

The elephant in the room for Muslims is that they declare and it itself confirms that the Koran is the ‘Actual and UNALTERABLE’ word of their God. That being so there is no room for reformation or indeed MODERATION. They are painted into a corner of their own making and so are stuck with trying to run and hide behind the primitive ambiguous ancient Arabic dialect in which is written to try and excuse all the self contradiction, mistakes, misogyny , support for slavery, turgid repetitiveness and Arab supremacy that comprises the Koran itself. There is as Adina so rightly says there is no such thing as “moderate’ Islam. While there may be moderate Muslims, in fact I know many such Muslims personally. But it is they who are the ‘Misunderstanders’ of Islam.

They were the hired mercenaries of the Germans- twice.
(Lawrence unified the 8 bandit tribes of Arabia to fight the German’s Ottoman Turks.)

Nazis were a role model. Very effective means to an end.
Hitler said he wanted to exile the Jews to Palestine.
Hussein countered with an offer of 400,000 soldiers and the oil of Iraq if Hitler would complete something the Arabs called ‘the Final Solution’ to the Jews.

That’s what happens when your culture is based on force-breeding soldiers whose pay is slaves, women, and land.

I really see know difference between religious fanaticism and the tyranny of authoritarianism and dictatorships, either from the right or the left. Whenever a religion so dominates a country that it can tell you how to live, what to do and how to do it, it really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you’re talking far left or far right. The Soviet Union was possibly as far left as you could go, yet what was the major difference between that form of government and a dictatorship? Only the number of people at the top of the country running it. No, whenever religion totally runs a nation, tyranny or oligarchy is not far behind, whether it is from the left or from the right.

There is no cirle or pendulum of ‘right-wing’ tyranny to ‘left-wing’ tyranny.
That was a fraud invented by the Left because they didn’t want their precious Socialism blamed for the War between National and International socialists, or for FDR’s attempt to create an American soviet.

These are the same Nazis (National Socialists). Nothing New. The Useful Idiots
of the Left don’t realize that they are the main target, the first to be beheaded. Basically the Left here and elsewhere are moral and physical cowards.
Have you noticed that attacks on the Catholic Church picked up steam after the
Mafia was weakened. The Left no longer fears the Catholic Church. They
fear Islam because the Muslims will kill them. It doesn’t help that the academic
community is filled with anti-Americans and anti-Semites. See Obama.

I can’t stand it when narrow blinkers demand that terms can’t be rebranded.
As if there is some strictly observed taboo against working with other gangs.

These people are LIARS. It’s what they do, because it works.
Today’s ally will be tomorrow’s enemy, and vice versa.
This is understood, but not openly spoken. Right now is what matters.

Victory is seen as whatever ‘wins’ the argument of the moment.
Tommorrow or 5 minutes from now may need a different claim.
It’s all about maintaining a posture. Nothing to do with ‘facts’.
It seems like dissonance, doublespeak, or mental illness because the goal has nothing to do with mutually reinforced honesty or trust. Different drummer, different values.

It’s how you defeat a better-equipped enemy. THAT is the goal.

You lie whenever you need to.
“They have not the truth, because it is not in them.”

It is a myth and Leftist generated canard that Nazis in Germany exterminated homosexuals like they did Jews and Gypsies. Indeed homosexuality was a powerful force within the Nazi movement.
Also, Nazis and Jihadist Muslims were closely allied during WWII even to the point that Muslim countries provided thousands of soldiers to the Wermacht. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a rabid anti-semite on the level of Hitler and Himmler, met repeatedly with the Nazis to plan strategy.
The close relationship of German Nazis to Mid-East Jihadists demands close study and several books.

Ernst Roehm, head of the Sturmabteilung (the “Storm Troopers” or “Brownshirts”) was a homosexual, as were some of his cronies. However, the Roehm faction were arrested and summarily executed on 2 July 1934 – the “Night of the Long Knives”, when Hitler eliminated the last potential rivals and opponents of his absolute power. Thereafter the Nazi regime treated homosexuals as criminals to be imprisoned and “racial impurities” to be murdered.

You are wrong Richard. The NAZIS did indeed kill homosexuals just like they killed the Mentally Retarded they were imprisoned in the Concentration Camps along with the Jews and Gypsies and had to wear a PINK badge. Before the mass genocide of the Jews they experimented with ways fo mass kill murder on the inmates in what were then called Lunatic Asylums and with babies born with defects as well as Homosexuals. The fact that many NAZIS were also homosexuals is just another indication of the hypocrisy of the Regime. A Hypocrisy shared by present day Left Wing moonbats and Muslims.

… And it is utterly ridiculous to add Catholics to the list. It is a myth of Catholics that hitler wasn’t a Catholic and many other Christians have bought into this myth. In fact they claim he was an atheist. This whole mythos is based on a bunch of quotes attributed to Hitler that he never made. These are based on mistranslations of “Table Talk” into French (and from there to English) as Richard Carrier points out.

Simburg seems to be suffering from this mythology because he lists Catholics as if Hitler was out to exterminate them. Hitlers armies killed people of many persuasions and that broader list includes Protestants, atheists, Muslims, and even his fellow travelers [night of the long knives]. That does not mean these people should be on the short list with Jews for extermination.

General information about Catholics: 3 Sacraments are most relevant: The first and most important Sacrament is Baptism(most Catholics receive it as an infant). The other two are the Sacrament of the Holy Communion and the Sacrament of the Holy Confirmation. I guess that the young Adolf received all 3 Sacraments. That is why Hitler might be seen as an official Catholic. However, a practising Catholic has to follow the 10 commandments. Here I see a problem with No. 5: Thou shalt not kill. During the 3rd Reich, the Catholic Church was treated as an enemy, while most Protestant Churches have been treated significantly better(except the Bekennende Kirche). But you are right: The average Catholic was not arrested because he was a Catholic but because he had done something “wrong” and therefore hit an existing law. We Catholics cannot be regarded as victims, we never could. We try our best, but somehow we are never perfect.

Hitler didn’t want to exterminate Catholics; he wanted to do something far more sinister- co-opt the Church to his own ends and strip out of Her anything of any spiritual value. Many martyrs were killed because they refused to comply with the regime, including many who were killed for the crime of hiding Jews.

Please note that the Nazis were of the left: they were “national socialists.” That they meddled in markets to direct income to their cronies, a la President Obama, does not make them conservative. That they were/are anti-Semitic, like the left all across the world, does not make them conservative.

Part of the confusion comes from the conflation of “supporter of individual liberty” with “right-wing” (which really means the party-in-power, as opposed to “left-wing”, which indicates the loyal opposition) and “conservative” (meaning one who upholds traditional ways or status-quot, as opposed to radicals who want to change everything to fit the latest theories). As has been pointed out numerous times, the Islamists are truly conservatives, who wish to practice orthodox Islam (I highly recommend listening to the podcast at Issues Etc: “Islam and the Gospel” with Dr. Adam Francisco , as well as the various works of Robert Spencer). It is the so-called “moderate Muslims” who are not faithful practitioners of their professed religion.

For an excellent overview of political orientations, see “the Pournelle Political Axes at http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm. Jerry Pournelle writes SF, but also has an advanced degrees in sociology. (Note that this article reverses the traditional “left” – “right” orientation of the axis.)

Fascism is properly depicted as a definite branch of socialism; it doesn’t insist on subsuming the entire economy into the government, but does demand government control of the means of production and the financial sector. Islam, given that it doesn’t promote full communism but does insist on “Shariah-compliant” banking and other measures that control industrial and financial systems definitely seems to fit into the worldview of “fascism”. I might also note that given Obama’s practices in the banking and industrial sectors (“Crony Capitalism”) he definitely has a fascist bent.

Actually, Islam predates the political left or the right, and both, I believe, are a French secular construct, left over from the French Revolution, which was anti-clerical (as well as about how and who was to pay for an insolvent French crown). Rather than “conservative,” seems to me that Islam is “traditional,” keeping conjoined and inseparable the political (the Western secular relativistic and profane) with the religious (sacred moral absolutes) ways of life that were the historical theocratic norm. In other words, you have no rights of conscience to sin in private or public under Islam, but under the secular Left you do have the right to practice toleration as long as ideologically approved by the Left–thus, the law of contracts and the presumption of freedom to enter and exit the contract between private individuals is suspended and violated by the Left’s individual healthcare mandate in favor of state coercion; the left wants a secular theocracy, admittedly a contradiction in terms.

Trying to compress all of the many political axes and choices into a single partition of right and left has always been an exercise so shallow and flawed that it should not be taken particularly seriously.

I believe it started as the seating in the French Parliament centuries ago – why should it matter now?

In any case political scientists admit this extremists of all stripes have more in common with each other than they have with moderate politics.

My political science teacher illustrated it this way:he drew the political spectrum as a circle instead of as a line – far left and far right met at the bottom of the circle

People who want to paint their own political roots as absolutely pure, free of sin, free of danger have so much hubris that they themselves are a danger.We should never be free of the need to question and doubt our rightness, virtue isn’t that easy

Seems his circle needs to be a sphere or perhaps an n-dimensional hypersphere. The original argument for a circle was flawed in that it viewed Hitler as being on the right, however he was always on the left in the first place. Communism and Nazism don’t meet coming from opposite directIons on a circle even if it were a circle, because the were coming from the same direction all along.

“I do not believe that fanaticism exists as it used to do in the world, judging from what I have seen in this so-called fanatic land. It is far more a question of property, and is more like Communism under the flag of religion.”
–General Gordon’s Journals at Khartoum, bk 1. p. 18 as quoted in The River War by Sir Winston Churchill

Islam is not merely wrong but is an actively evil philosophy. One can look into the bible and find passages which have promoted evil like ” thou shall not suffer a witch to live” and have been acted upon, however such passages are much easier to undermine as a Christian than the evil in the Qur’an.

What was that? You are rambling incoherently. Amen, I say to you, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is worthless, but if Christ indeed rose from the dead, He is Lord of the Universe and the only Judge.

Islam is a fundamentalist religious system. it is not right or left and to attempt tortured reasoning to prove one way or the other is silly. Some of these posts border on the bizarre trying to pigeonhole Islam into political labels, it is a Theocracy.

It is incredibly important to understand History and why things are, otherwise it is too easy to lead an entire nation over the cliff as is occurring in the USA today.

The house of Saud has been promoting Sharia, Funds Hamas, is committed to eliminate Israel and for some reason popular media including PJM cannot bring itself to even mention these facts, maybe discussing the House of Saud and destruction it has wrought upon the world these last 350 years might make a better article..?

BTW, Christians do not celebrate Easter. The origins of Easter are mystery religions existing in Rome, when Roman decreed Christianity would be state sponsored religion these celebrations were melded into the Roman Catholic religions. Originally Easter was the celebration of spring and cycle of seasons, usually celebrated the first full moon after spring equinox. Christians celebrate the resurrection of Christ, but Easter is a pagan Holiday

Wrong. The Latin word for the Resurrection of the Lord is “Pasqua” which is derived from the Hebrew, “Pasch,” meaning “Passover.” Your etymological issue is with the English Language, not the Catholic Church. FYI, the name “Catholic” dates back to c. 100 AD and was coined by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was ordained by and predeceased John the Apostle.

Biblically, Passover is supposed to occur in the spring (“Aviv,” which was the original name for the month Nisan, means “spring”), so the Catholic Church calculates the lunar leap years such that Nisan 14 will never occur before March 21. Pasqua is the following Sunday, because it was on Sunday that Jesus rose from the dead. The Passion of the Lord is celebrated the Friday before Pasqua, regardless of what day of the week Nisan 14 falls on, because He rose from the dead on the third day.

Individualism and personal liberty are not “right-wing” or “conservative” values. The “throne-and-altar” reactionaries that dominated European conservatism in the 1800s and early 1900s were hostile to both.

So were the totalitarian socialists of the Communist bloc – so these are not “left-wing” values either.

Fascism has its emotional roots in the left-wing desire to remake the world; but its program was much closer to the reactionaries’ goals.

Militant Islamism draws on that fascist emotionalism – but again, look at the program: it is fanatically opposed to all modernity other than technology. This is a parallel to Nazism; and Mr. Simberg is correct to point out the ideological and operational links between early Islamists and the Axis. (It is also worth noting that the secular-Arab-nationalist Ba’ath movement also aped European fascism.)

As it is a reactionary, anti-modern program, it is “conservative”, not “left-wing”. Ironically, because it is opposed to the power of Western states and culture, it is embraced by nitwits of the Left.

I agree with your last sentence but wish to point out that conservatism depends on who is in power. Communist can be conservatives in communist countries. Islamists can be the revolutionaries in countries that are non-Muslim. In fact Muslims view Mohammad as a revolutionary social reformer (out to stop female infanticide for one thing and to reform slavery for another).

I disagree with your statement “Fascism has its emotional roots in the left-wing desire to remake the world; but its program was much closer to the reactionaries’ goals”. Nazism and Fascism had way more in common with the left than a desire to remake the world. They were both, in fact, left wing ideologies. There goals were left wing. The left wing itself is reactionary against changes brought about by economic liberalization. You can see that kind of behavior even now with the lefts desire to revert back to some supposed golden era of preindustrialization. One can desire to remake the world as it was in some ways while desiring to remake the world as it has never been in other ways. The Nazis were not classical liberals but surprise neither were other leftists. Both were reactionaries against capitalism.

If you want to find out what islamization means in practice, plaese have a look at what is happening in Sweden:

Sweden – A raped country

“1975 was the year in which a unanimous Parliament decided that Sweden should be transformed into a multicultural society. One result is an increase in reported rapes since 1975 with an incredible 673 percent”

“Some young men that were interviewed by the daily DN in response to a gang rape in Rissne outside of Stockholm put it like this:

“It’s not as wrong to rape a Swedish girl as it is to rape an Arab girl, says Hamid. The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably been fu***d already. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her it is a great shame to be raped. It is important that she retains her virginity when she marries. “

Americans don’t tend to think of the middle east this way, but its countries are overwhelmingly socialist and totalitarian in nature. I have heard many people refer to Islamic-run countries as “right wing” but that could not be farther from the truth. They are religious dictatorships, figure headed by kings and run by mullahs so maybe that is why there is confusion – in the west religion and socialism don’t mix. We think of countries run by kings as being right wing, as this is as it once was. The push for “democracy” is being spearheaded by the communist parties in various countries, including America. For various and sundry reasons.

The problem with the question is that the original debate between “left” and “right” policies was entirely a Marxist one: should the government literally and completely confiscate all private property (communism) or should it just regulate it to the point of total control but not technically “own” it (socialism)? The Leninists said the former, the Nazis said the latter. And then, true to form, they set about murdering each other for daring to disagree.
Nazism is as far from American Constitutionalism as Leninism is.

Islam agrees that everyone who disagrees with the party line should be murdered. And Jews.

Don’t forget the pogroms in Russia. Every Satanic conspiracy will include a program to murder Jews.